This is what happens when your camera's frame rate matches a bird's wing flap

Here's a neat trick you might not have realized is possible. If your camera's frame rate matches the flapping rate of a bird's wings, you can create a video where it seems like the bird is floating 'magically' on frozen wings.

The video above is going viral today after YouTuber Ginger Beard shared it on his nascent channel. As he explains on Reddit, the video was captured with a Hikvision DS-2CD2342WD-I security camera set to "max resolution" at 2688×1520 and 20 frames per second. Apparently, the bird's wings were also set to 20fps, because this 'magic' video is what popped out the other side.

And if you like this, check out this similar video shared on the DPReview forums a few months ago. In that one, the camera's frame rate is perfectly synced to a helicopter's rotor.

Comments

But even if camera's frame rate matches the bird's flap rate, shouldn't we still see some jello effect? What we see in the video can be explained very easily if the camera captures each of those 20 frames at once; something like a global shutter feature on expensive cameras. But if each frame is captured line by line (progressive), then there should be some jello effect. Do security cameras have global shutter feature?

This goes back a ways. The Winter Olympics were held in Japan. When in Japan, Life magazine had some of the 'Staff' buy new gear. One Photog, bought the new motor drive for an F2. I use to know all names of Staff Photogs, but one gets old and Life, ain't around, so it don't matter to you all.

At the Skating Arena, (how about that ? George Silk) the photog with the F2 and motor drive, told Peggy Flanning that she 'Spins' at 12 frame a second. He had 36 images of her 'Backside' ! ..... Enjoy

There's also that group of people that uses mockery and insults instead of actual arguments, thinking it makes them right. You know, like someone takes time to calmly explain their opinion in detail, and people like you go "lul, your stupid" in response.

Unfortunately, that's how discussions seem to go on the internet, so your comment is bound to be up-voted like crazy.

They always are, the close up objects move past the car much faster in relation to the car than the plane does because the plane is much further away.

It gives the impression the plane is not moving. There's always trees, lampposts or especially bridges in these videos. Because an object like a bridge moves into and out of view in a second and the plane doesn't it looks like the plane is moving slowly or hovering.

Every single "hovering plane" video features a moving car and a plane on final approach and yet people are still on youtube absolutely insisting that it's some kind of glitch in the matrix yet these people refuse stop and get out of the car even when they are self proclaimed experts who have captured this "anomaly" numerous times.

As usual a bunch of adults are indulging their imagination and trying to make it real, conveniently dodging that mean old truth.

Franz Weber - although Mato34's tip will work, remember that if you decide to update your bird you'll have to live the rest of your life remembering the look on his little face when you stuck the USB cable in

I guess it could be called an SUV as well. All that implies is Sport Utility Vehicle, which I think a truck can be classified as that as well. But what most people think of when they hear SUV is Honda CRV, Ford Explorer, etc. But this article is about the bird and the camera, not the truck.

I think we'd have fewer vehicles in the US if they started taxing based on fuel economy. Get under 20 MPG? Be ready to pay some higher taxes and/or vehicle registration/renewal costs... I see many people that are "truck-wannabee" people that basically have a truck for no reason... they don't tow things or haul things. Then of course, there is the other side of the spectrum... there are those who try to use a Ford Ranger or other small pick up to do to the work of a full-sized truck, when in fact they should just get a full-sized truck.

The only way this would be possible is if the bird flapped 20 times per second, which birds of this size don't do. Also, the frame rate of the video is clearly way lower than 20 and is kind of uneven. Notice the slow-downs at he beginning when the bird arrives and leaves. That's when the bird would flap slower due to horizontal gliding through the air. Strange?

Nope, not strange. Just fake. So lemme tell you how this video was made: you take the footage and you cut out all the frames except the ones you need (wings down). There, done. And you get uneven video frame rate, depending on the rate of wing flaps.

Occams razor tells us that this is not fake. This is the most plausible explanation. The sparrow can flap at 20 FPS (flaps per second), because it routinely flaps at 15 FPS.

The alternative would be that it flaps at 10 FPS (or 6.67 FPS or 5 FPS), and the clever poster just shows every other frame. Som here then have said that the sparrow will fall to the ground at those slow FPS.

That someone says that the video looks uneven is just a red herring. There is no way an uneven flapping could be catched this way. It would be all over the place, and not in sync.

@Roland Karlsson,I don't think you understand how Occam's Razor works. I see clear discrepancies that make me doubt the authenticity of the video: 1. Frame rate is visually lower than 20, yet it is claimed to be 20. But OK, it may be subjective.2. Frame rate is uneven. The beginning and the end of the bird flight contain stuttering. It is clearly visible. Yet it remains synchronized with wing flaps. Why and how?3. Let's say sparrows do actually flap their wings 20 times per second (even if wiki tells us otherwise), still no bird flaps at the same rate when they fly and when they hover. Hovering requires increased flapping rate, it's a fact. Yet in this video we see the wing flaps that stay synchronized throughout the flight AND hovering.

So unless someone explains me how all these phenomena fall into a "real accidental video" story, I remain skeptical, because my version of removed frames actually explains ALL of those.

On the net there are zillions of videos, in particular from automatic cameras. Some of the videos shows the most unbelievable events. Most of them are probably for real and just coincidences that happens due to the massive amount of videos.

I understand why to fake UFO and paranormal things etc. But this?

I still think the simplest explanation is that it is for real, i.e. Occams Razor.

BTW - I do not see the uneven movement.

Maybe the wings are a bit too sharp? And what is the thing moving past in the top? Another bird?

@Roland Karlsson,I have provided clear arguments and explained my doubts. Simply dismissing them without any counter-arguments and without proving them invalid isn't the application of Occam's Razor. It's not how it works.

The simplest explanation for the sun visually moving across the sky is that the sun actually does that. But as long as arguments and observations can be made proving us otherwise, it doesn't mean such an explanation is the correct one.

I don't obsess over the details of some random video nor am I trying to be sceptical for the sake of being sceptical. I just noticed some aspects of the interesting footage that make no sense to me and that's why I brought them up. Fake videos aren't something unusual on the internet after all.

1) There are duplicated frames. Essentially in some areas, there are two identical frames next to each other. The majority of the duplicate frames are when the bird enters and leaves the frame.

2) Counting frames, the seconds on the clock are ticking over approximately once per 40 frames (approx). This agrees with the fact the video is 11s long, but 5s pass on the clock. This is clearly NOT the original video but has been slowed down; playing at about half speed.

3) If the video is 20 fps, and there are non-duplicate frames, and the video is at about 1/2 speed, the video CANNOT have been filmed in 20 fps.

4) The camera in question films at 20, 25, or 30 fps (BHPhoto spec sheet). Except there are about 40 fps in the video (based on the clock).

The video on Youtube is NOT the original video as recorded. I suspect the video was filmed at a higher frame rate. All the frames with the wings in the correct position were cherry-picked and assembled into a 20 fps video. Some frames were duplicated as needed where there weren't available frames.

Perhaps it was filmed at 30 fps, with the bird flapping at about 15 flaps per second. The non-compliant frames were removed, other frames duplicated to construct a 20 fps video playing at about 1/2 speed. This would require approximately 25% of the frames to be a duplicate. I did a very rough count of duplicate frames and that is about right.

@cosinaphile my original comment was directed to @Xeexon to ask why he/she would even post "this is why we cant have nice things". I fully understand your connecting of that statement to Archer. I don't need that to be explained.

I am still trying to understand what the OP meant by

"We did this to ourselves. We were whiny, ungrateful, hyper-critical trolls who loved dpreview so much that we destroyed it via the comments section."

@tech - in short (maybe), perhaps you've noticed what a few other posters continue to point out from time to time: that dpreview has recently become more of an aggregator of internet flotsam and jetsam rather than a producer of high quality original content and insightful commentary. I liken it to the NYTimes becoming Yahoo! News. Sadly, there's probably a sound economics argument for this change- but I'm imagining a whimsical scenario where dpreview is doing it to punish us for our ungrateful behavior vis a vis the negative, snarky cesspool that the comments section has historically been.

So, in conclusion, that's why we can't have nice things. Bring on the cat videos.

@Xeexon I enjoyed the article. It is trivial and casual and doesn't diminish other content that is more serious. I guess I don't understand how articles like this change the site as long as it is still delivering the serious content at the same time.

Generally, I agree with the premise- and this particular article is more photo/photo tech related than most of the 'fluff' pieces- but I can't help but notice that original content is gradually becoming supplanted by these bits, and these whimsical articles are being presented with a diminishing amount of analysis- e.g. 'See this video on YouTube'. Which adds little value, in my opinion.

Of course, one could use the analogy of a photog's portfolio: if you have three Magnum worthy photos and 200 carelessly framed snapshots, I would argue that having the 200 there does detract from the three good ones- and your credibility as a photographer overall. But that's just one perspective.

The Panasonic FZ1000 II is a worthy successor to the company's first large-sensor, long-zoom bridge camera, and a value-conscious rival to the popular Sony RX10-series. It's just as fast as its predecessor but produces nicer JPEGs, has significantly improved controls and interface, and more.

Latest buying guides

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

Believe it or not, there are still people that like to print out their photos and create photo books to send gifts to family members. We looked at five popular photo printing services and have chosen the best.

If you are looking for a fun photography project to try, Mathieu Stern has a neat idea for you. Using the 'anthotype' process, Stern used only beetroot juice, paper, a photo positive and a bit of time in the sun to create a phytotype photograph.

Cameras' video capabilities just keep getting better. But what if you're not interested in video? Here's why you probably won't get stills-only versions of most cameras, and why they wouldn't be cheaper, if you did.

DxO has announced Nik Collection 3. The popular plugin suite includes a new Perspective Efex plugin for fixing distortion and adjusting perspective, bringing the total number of plugins in the suite to eight.

The term 'computational photography' gets used a lot these days, but what exactly is it? In this article, the first in a three-part series, guest contributor Vasily Zubarev dives deep to show us how photography will work in the future.